d topics.
> but the
> question remains to include Kalle's design in a package like
> installation-guide.
Good question: in that case, it would be greatly appreciated if Kalle's
design were licensed under GPL-v2-compatible terms.
>
> Kalle, would it be OK for you to publi
ther Types of Works”: “We
> don't take the position that artistic or entertainment works must be
> free, but if you want to make one free, we recommend the Free Art License.”
This is known and not so relevant as it may seem: the Debian Project is
not the FSF and the FSF is not the Debian
the license included with Kalle's work the English or the French one ?
It links to the English version on this terms:
Copyleft : This work is free, you can copy, spread, and modify it under
the terms of the Free Art License http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/
but according to the Licen
Hi !
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 09:48:32PM -0400, David Prévot wrote:
[...]
> >> 5. COMPATIBILITY
> >> A license is compatible with the Free Art License provided:
> >> it gives the right to copy, distribute, and modify copies of the work
> >> including for comme
the position that artistic or entertainment works must be
free, but if you want to make one free, we recommend the Free Art License.”
This license is about artistic work, is initially written in French, and
as such is under French right and valid in countries that signed the
Berne Convention for
f...@firenze.linux.it wrote:
>Nobody seemed to disagree with this conclusion.
Please do not mistake lack of interest in your ramblings with consensus.
--
ciao,
Marco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:55:44 +0530 Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> Francesco Poli writes:
>
> > This might forbid anonymous works or anonymous modifications,
> > which is non-free, IMO.
>
> Why so?
Which is the part you're asking clarifications about?
If you are asking "why might this forbid anonymo
paiva...@gmail.com (Mahesh T. Pai) writes:
> Francesco Poli writes:
>
> > This might forbid anonymous works or anonymous modifications,
> > which is non-free, IMO.
>
> Why so?
I believe http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#dissident>
applies.
--
\ “In the long run, th
oved with respect to the
>corresponding one in the Free Art License version 1.2. However, I
>am still a little concerned that this could mean that, in order to
>distribute a work under this license, I am required, as long as I go
>on distributing, to keep updated information on where recipients
ents.
As usual, IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.
(If these disclaimers are useless/not-enough/ludicrous/awkward/whatever,
please come to an agreed conclusion on what a poor contributor should
do in order to participate in this mailing list discussions!)
> Free Art License 1.3
[...]
> 2.2 F
Hello everyone,
back on April 2006, we discussed the Free Art License version 1.2:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/msg00257.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/msg00259.html
My own conclusion was that this license seemed to be *intended* to be a
free copyleft one (but
Mathieu Stumpf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The already a discution[1] which was opened about this license, but I
> didn't find if this license is DFSG complient.
I have reviewed the discussion of
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/09/msg00132.html
In my opinion, this license:
+ permits free redi
Hi!
The already a discution[1] which was opened about this license, but I
didn't find if this license is DFSG complient.
Also note that the current french version is 1.3 while in english only
1.2 version seems available. If you know french, you should look at
1.3.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/de
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:41:12 +0100 Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
> Francesco Poli escribe:
> > As I previously stated (in this same thread), my personal opinion on
> > CC-v3.0 licenses is that they fail to meet the DFSG. Other people
> > disagree with me, though.
>
> Maybe a big part of the pr
Francesco Poli escribe:
> As I previously stated (in this same thread), my personal opinion on
> CC-v3.0 licenses is that they fail to meet the DFSG. Other people
> disagree with me, though.
Maybe a big part of the problem is that licenses which are ok for
documentation or software works are not
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 14:21:34 + (GMT) MJ Ray wrote:
> Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
> > [...] I also believe that a large number of debian-legal
> > participants have said that the DRM clause, as it stands, is free
> > enough to allow distribution under DRM if such DRM is not
> > "ef
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 08:35:57 -0500 Evan Prodromou wrote:
[...]
> That includes the amended revocation and
> attribution clauses that Francesco is concerned with; we thought they
> were sufficiently softened that they were not an effective prevention
> of licensors exercising their freedom.
A soft
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 13:56:47 +0100 Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2007 at 13:41:35 +0100, Ismael Valladolid Torres
> wrote:
>
> > Julien Cristau escribe:
> > > CC-* before 3.0 are non-free
> >
> > Why exactly!?
>
> See http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary (this is about 2.0, but I
>
On Fri, Mar 9, 2007 at 13:41:35 +0100, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
> Julien Cristau escribe:
> > CC-* before 3.0 are non-free
>
> Why exactly!?
See http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary (this is about 2.0, but I
think the same problems apply to 2.5).
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Julien Cristau escribe:
> CC-* before 3.0 are non-free
Why exactly!?
pgpQT25CqkVgT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Mar 9, 2007 at 08:34:30 +0100, Mathieu Stumpf wrote:
> Great, there are 996 songs under CC-by (2.0+2.5) if I just look at
> dogmazic.net.
>
CC-* before 3.0 are non-free, CC-by 3.0 is probably ok, IIRC.
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "un
Great, there are 996 songs under CC-by (2.0+2.5) if I just look at
dogmazic.net.
Thank you, that's a clear answer. Now I can go ahead! :)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mathieu Stumpf escribe:
> Well, all that is great, but what should I understand with all that, is
> there no license under which I can find songs that debian would accept
> in the main repository?
>
AFAIK CC-by would allow it.
> Please make a short and clear answer. :)
Hopefully mine is. :)
No
Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> My opinion is based on the contribution of debian-legal participants, of
> the workgroup participants, and of my own review of the licenses.
I don't doubt that. However, that's still your opinion rather than the
Workgroup's. I don't mean anything bad by that.
Well, all that is great, but what should I understand with all that, is
there no license under which I can find songs that debian would accept
in the main repository?
Please make a short and clear answer. :)
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 00:32:44 + Andrew Saunders wrote:
> On 3/5/07, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > As far as CC-v3.0 are concerned, my personal opinion should be clear
> > from the message[2] that you yourself cite: I don't think that any
> > CC-v3.0 license meets the DFSG. Oth
On Tue, 2007-06-03 at 10:06 +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > In his role as DPL, that same ftp-master (or "archive maintainer", if
> > you prefer) has endorsed [2] the Debian Creative Commons Workgroup
> > which opined [3] that the CCPL 3.0 is suitable for Debian main. [...]
>
> I think [3]'s the opinion
Andrew Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> In his role as DPL, that same ftp-master (or "archive maintainer", if
> you prefer) has endorsed [2] the Debian Creative Commons Workgroup
> which opined [3] that the CCPL 3.0 is suitable for Debian main. [...]
I think [3]'s the opinion of the Wor
On 3/5/07, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As far as CC-v3.0 are concerned, my personal opinion should be clear
from the message[2] that you yourself cite: I don't think that any
CC-v3.0 license meets the DFSG. Other people disagree with me, though.
You didn't find any "final answer"
work (that is to say, before it's too late...).
>
> So I red some threads but I didn't find any final answer, are CC
> 3.0[2] (and which one?) and free art license okay with the DFSG[3]?
>
> Regards etc.
>
> [1] http://www.stepmania.com/
> [2] http://lists.de
Okay, I'm planning to make some maps for stepmanie[1], but I would like to
map songs that will have no legal problem to be include in Debian.
So I red some threads but I didn't find any final answer, are CC 3.0[2] (and
which one?) and free art license okay with the DFSG[3]?
Regard
On Thu, 04 May 2006 09:08:24 +0200 Frank Küster wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It *does* mean you would be forever required to keep updated
> > information on where recipients can access the original artwork.
> >
> > (For the Mona Lisa, the answer would be The Louvre.
On Thu, 4 May 2006 02:09:51 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 May 2006 15:18:32 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:54:53 +1000 Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> > > > There is a license called the Free Art license, I
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It *does* mean you would be forever required to keep updated information on
> where recipients can access the original artwork.
>
> (For the Mona Lisa, the answer would be The Louvre.)
>
> The freeness of this is arguable. I think it's supposed to be
Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 1 May 2006 15:18:32 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:54:53 +1000 Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> > > There is a license called the Free Art license, I don't know if that
> > > is DFSG-free.
> >
> > I
On Mon, 1 May 2006 15:18:32 -0400 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:54:53 +1000 Andrew Donnellan wrote:
>
> > There is a license called the Free Art license, I don't know if that
> > is DFSG-free.
>
> I believe that it is.
If you do, could you please
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:54:53 +1000 Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> There is a license called the Free Art license, I don't know if that
> is DFSG-free.
I believe that it is.
However, it is not a very appropriate license for all-digital works.
It is specifically designed to address physic
Le vendredi 28 avril 2006 à 10:33 +1000, Andrew Donnellan a écrit :
> Section 8 - French law - seems to make it non-free by DFSG standards.
We've never considered choice of law as non-free. Such clauses are
considered moot in most juridictions anyway.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/
wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:54:53 +1000 Andrew Donnellan wrote:
>
> > There is a license called the Free Art license, I don't know if that
> > is DFSG-free.
>
> Here's the text, taken from http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/
>
>
>
> Free Art License
>
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 01:15:28 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:54:53 +1000 Andrew Donnellan wrote:
>
> > There is a license called the Free Art license, I don't know if that
> > is DFSG-free.
>
> Here's the text, taken from http://artlibre.
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:54:53 +1000 Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> There is a license called the Free Art license, I don't know if that
> is DFSG-free.
Here's the text, taken from http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/
Free Art License
[ Copyleft Attitude ]
version 1.2
Preamble :
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 10:28:18AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-10-01 01:16:29 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>"I consider the preferred form for modifying this program"
> >which is exactly the form of my examples: "I consider C code to be the
> >preferred form for modi
On 2004-10-01 01:16:29 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"I consider the preferred form for modifying this program"
which is exactly the form of my examples: "I consider C code to be the
preferred form for modifying this program" [...]
I think you should look again at your o
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 01:28:39AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 21:25, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 08:24:46PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > > I've a number of documents that say "References to "object code" and
> > > "executables" in the GNU GPL are to
On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 21:25, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 08:24:46PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > How do you feel about specifying what is *not* the preferred form of
> > modification ("object code", in GPL parlance)?
>
> It's likely to cause problems, too.
>
> > I've a numbe
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 08:24:46PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> How do you feel about specifying what is *not* the preferred form of
> modification ("object code", in GPL parlance)?
It's likely to cause problems, too.
> I've a number of documents that say "References to "object code" and
> "exec
On Wed, 2004-09-29 at 22:27, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 11:24:47PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > >The source is defined as "The source code for a work means the
> > >preferred
> > >form of the work for making modifications to it."
> > >
> > >It's not always clear what the preferred
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 01:09:36AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-10-01 00:37:18 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >If so, then I have no idea what you meant; please be more specific
> >(ie.
> >give an example). [...]
>
> I gave an example in my previous email and you quoted it.
On 2004-10-01 00:37:18 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If so, then I have no idea what you meant; please be more specific
(ie.
give an example). [...]
I gave an example in my previous email and you quoted it. I think
either you are being obtuse, or we cannot communicate about
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 12:10:01AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-09-30 04:27:05 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 11:24:47PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>>It's not always clear what the preferred form of modification would
> >>>be
> >>>for a piece of media.
On 2004-09-30 04:27:05 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 11:24:47PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
It's not always clear what the preferred form of modification would
be
for a piece of media. [...]
So specify it.
That's a very bad idea; it'd merely be *his* preferre
On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 11:24:47PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >The source is defined as "The source code for a work means the
> >preferred
> >form of the work for making modifications to it."
> >
> >It's not always clear what the preferred form of modification would be
> >for a piece of media. [...]
>
On 2004-09-12 13:53:35 +0100 Kai Blin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The source is defined as "The source code for a work means the
preferred
form of the work for making modifications to it."
It's not always clear what the preferred form of modification would be
for a piece of media. [...]
So sp
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 04:06:46PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > - specify to the recipient the name of the author of the originals,
> Impossible for anonymous authors.
I'm not so sure.
Alternatively, there's no "the" name. I've a first name, middle name
and family name. With initials, and
Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> I don't think so, undocumented source there is still a good chance to
> make modification, sure it might be more difficult, but I still have
> everything that I need to produce the binary. With the image however I
> only have the 'binary', I don't have any 'source' information
Josh Triplett wrote:
>> 7. Sub-licensing
>>
>> Sub-licenses are not authorized by the present license. Any person who
>> wishes to make use of the rights that it confers will be directly bound
>> to the author of the original work.
>
> This is the oddity referred to above. First of all, based o
First, anyone analyzing this license should note that many of the
odder-sounding provisions in this license are related to physical artworks
("Originals") where modification may actually change the original.
It appears that the right to copy, create modified copies, and distribute
copies (modified
m talking to think
> so.
Depending on the issue you have with the GPL, you might consider it
acceptable to dual-license your work under both the GPL and the Free Art
License (or any other license you want). If you do so, then your work
will always be Free Software and DFSG-Free, even if the
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>> The Original (the work's source or resource):
>> A dated example of the work, of its definition, of its partition or of
>> its program which the originator provides as the reference for all
>> future updatings, interpretations, copies or reproductions.
>
> wtf? This de
* Ingo Ruhnke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [13/09/04, 17:21:36]:
> > It depends on the specific case. In my opinion, almost all of those
> > media types actually have a prefered form for modification.
>
> Depends, I have hardly seen any .xcf, .blend or source formats for
> .ogg/.mp3 in the wild, in this
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 05:21:36PM +0200, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> I don't think so, undocumented source there is still a good chance to
> make modification, sure it might be more difficult, but I still have
> everything that I need to produce the binary. With the image however I
> only have the 'binar
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:58:17 -0700, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Say something like a graphical image of a button that is basically
>> text + a few filters to add a 3d effect and such. If I want to
>> change the actually text on the image in a meaningfull way, so that
>> it fits toge
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 11:36:06PM +0200, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> > (There's been a repeated conversation wrt. source distribution and the
> > DFSG: what should Debian require for things like images, fonts and
> > movie clips? There isn't a strong consensus, yet.)
>
> Why does Debian than distribute
* Ingo Ruhnke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [12/09/04, 23:36:06]:
> If I want to change the actually text on the image in a meaningfull
> way, so that it fits together with other buttons that ues the same
> style, I need to know the filters and parameters that where used in
> the process, however often that
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 11:36:06PM +0200, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> > (There's been a repeated conversation wrt. source distribution and the
> > DFSG: what should Debian require for things like images, fonts and
> > movie clips? There isn't a strong consensus, yet.)
>
> Why does Debian than distribute
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004, Ingo Ruhnke wrote:
> Say something like a graphical image of a button that is basically
> text + a few filters to add a 3d effect and such. If I want to
> change the actually text on the image in a meaningfull way, so that
> it fits together with other buttons that ues the same
> For the first: if it's the form that would be used if the author wanted
> to modify the image further, yes.
How about stuff that is 'one-way', ie. not modifiable at all in a
usefull way with todays given file formats (.xcf). Say something like
a graphical image of a button that is basically tex
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is indeed an issue.
> Is source still source when it grows beyond the imaginable?
> But that issue is not GPL-specific, IMHO.
> Are you really providing the freedoms that we value, without providing
> the preferred form for modification?
I think th
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 14:53:35 +0200 Kai Blin wrote:
> > I would suggest sticking to the GNU GPL.
> > I cannot see what is not clear with the GPL applied to artwork...
>
> Well, Section 3 of the GPL allows you to copy and distribute the work
> if you also distribute the source (or make it accesible
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 02:53:35PM +0200, Kai Blin wrote:
> It's not always clear what the preferred form of modification would be
> for a piece of media. For a picture composed of multiple layers, it's a
> version with all the layers intact and seperate, but often, in the
> process of working on a
* Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [12/09/04, 11:42:42]:
> Switching from the GPL to a GPL-incompatible license would probably
> cause major problems to any other GPL-compatible work that would like to
> reuse your work (in any way that creates a derivative work).
> Creating barriers across the
for artwork.
I would say "please, don't do that".
The Free Art License could even be judged DFSG-free (we don't know by
now, as there is not yet a clear consensus...), but it doesn't seem to
be a well worded license.
And it's clearly a GPL-incompatible license (being
The work of art:
A communal work which includes the initial oeuvre as well as all
m-w.com defines oeuvre (a word I'd never heard before...) as "a
substantial body of work constituting the lifework of a writer, an
artist, or a composer." I don't think that's the right word.
The Original (th
* Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [09/09/04, 13:31:40]:
> It's very poorly worded; the body of the "clause" is "All the elements
> of this work of art must remain free", which is vague and meaningless.
> The rest isn't written as a restriction at all, but as a strange conclusion
> from the vagu
* Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [09/09/04, 05:03:24]:
> Is there a particular work under this license that you would like Debian
> to include, or do you just want a review of the license?
I wanted a review of the license as we're considering switching the
package sear-media and another media
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 13:31:40 -0400, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 05:03:24AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
(...)
> > > 4. Your Author's Rights
> > >
> > > The object of this license is not to deny your author's rights on your
> > > contribution. By choosing to cont
* Josh Triplett:
>> 3. Incorporation of Artwork
>>
>> All the elements of this work of art must remain free, which is why you
>> are not allowed to integrate the originals (originals and subsequents)
>> into another work which would not be subject to this license.
>
> This is a standard copyleft
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 05:03:24AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > The author or the artist of the initial work of art:
> > This is the person who created the work which is at the heart of the
> > ramifications of this modified work of art.
These definitions belong in an art textbook, not a licens
IMHO, looks like a free software, copyleft license. Any other thoughts
out there? -Joe
--
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
http://pobox.com/~joehall/
> Free Art license
> [ Copyleft Attitude ]
>
> version 1.2
>
> Preamble:
[snipped; no license terms]
> Definitions
>
> The work of art:
> A communal work which includes the initial oeuvre as well as all
> subsequent contributions (subsequent originals an
Kai Blin wrote:
> I'm writing to ask if the Free Art License would be considered Free by
> the debian free software guidelines.
>
> The text of the license can be found at
> http://artlibre.org/licence.php/lalgb.html
Here is the text of the license, for easy quoting and comm
Hi folks,
I'm writing to ask if the Free Art License would be considered Free by
the debian free software guidelines.
The text of the license can be found at
http://artlibre.org/licence.php/lalgb.html
Cheers,
Kai
--
Kai Blin aka. nowhere (blingmx.net), WorldForge Project
Web:
On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 02:29:49AM -0500, David B Harris wrote:
> However, Part 2.1 is a serious concern. "You have the right to copy this
> work of art of your personal use, for your friends or any other person,
> by employing whatever technique you choose." Reading the original
> French, this is
; game's original authors (who hold copyright) have not yet picked a
> license for the large quantity of data that goes along side the game
> (recorded voices, ship and planet graphics, scripts for the dialog, etc).
> One license that was recently proposed was the Free Art License:
On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 03:08:03AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Part of 2.2:
> - specify to the recipient where he will be able to access
> the originals (initial and subsequent). The author of the
> original may, if he wishes, give you the right to broadcast /
> distribute the
On 14 Dec 2002 03:08:03 -0500
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Part 8, I'm sure, will cause problems - it has in the past, but I
> > can't remember in what context; it may just be that some zealots
> > made some hubub a while back that. I don't really recall.
>
> I can't manage to
On Sat, 2002-12-14 at 02:29, David B Harris wrote:
> I don't believe part 7 is saying anything additional to what copyright
> law already says; the original author still holds the copyright, even if
> you got the data from friend who got the data from a sister who got the
> data from an aunt who g
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 01:51:59 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steven Barker) wrote:
> I'd like the advice of this list as to whether data under that license
> would be DFSG free. I think the license is a pretty straightforward
> copyleft, though at least the translated version has some unclear
> language.
t picked a
license for the large quantity of data that goes along side the game
(recorded voices, ship and planet graphics, scripts for the dialog, etc).
One license that was recently proposed was the Free Art License:
http://www.artlibre.org/ for the original French version,
http://artlibre.org/l
89 matches
Mail list logo
